Here is some cogent political commentary from my brother Len. It is filled with useful talking points you can use if you ever find yourself conversing with a conservative.
Do You Love Your Freedom?
This question has become the rallying cry from Sarah Palin, the canonized queen of the Tea Party movement. The fact that Ms. Palin chooses to raise this question at every $100,000 speaking opportunity of course presumes that the current denizens of the White House and Congressional majority don’t love their freedom and want to take it away from those that do. This is a devilishly effective oratorical ploy, as it serves to galvanize its intended conservative audience while simultaneously demonizing the political left. So here’s a shout-out to Ms. Palin: hats off for a job well done!
On the other side of the political divide, many observers and pundits dismiss the growing ranks of Tea Party-ists as stupid, stooges, or racists (or all of the above), who are whipped into a frenzy by self-aggrandizing opportunists like Beck, Limbaugh and Palin.
Such sweeping disdain is a very big and hypocritical mistake as deserving of scorn as Ms. Palin’s blanket condemnation of the “lamestream media”. Mother Gump’s admonition that “stupid is as stupid does” applies well here on both sides of the political spectrum.
The fact is, there is a genuine and legitimate divide in America over the question of the proper role and reach of the federal government that warrants serious political discourse, not the lowest common denominator of dismissive smear.
What makes this issue so heated is that opinions appear sharply divided not only at the extremes of the political spectrum, but far closer to the middle ground of centrist political thought. For example, in a recent NY Times Op-Ed, progressive conservative columnist David Brooks decried the Obama administration’s lurch to left wing “big government” policies, which Brooks contends has amplified Republican and Tea Party opposition. Brooks espouses a deep distrust of the federal government’s ability to effectively or efficiently address the problems that rank high on the Obama administration’s progressive change agenda. Brooks’ criticism is that President Obama has picked the wrong fights in the wrong sequence, which has driven the country into a paralyzed divide. As a self-declared “centrist” (just right of center to be precise) Brooks bemoans his growing isolation in a country which increasingly is gravitating towards political extremes.
As much as I admire Brooks’ clarity and profundity on most subjects, as a left leaning, free market centrist, I fundamentally disagree with his assessment of and opposition to Obama administration policies.*
At the heart of this debate are two diametrically opposed views of what drives President Obama’s governance philosophy. On the one side, most moderate to arch conservatives appear convinced that Obama is a slave to left wing big government activist ideology. Those inclined to more inflammatory rhetoric would have us pin a “socialist” tail on this donkey.
On the other side are left-leaning centrists to hard core Democrats who believe that Obama is taking a pragmatic and entirely necessary response to an unprecedented array of societal challenges, which call for more federal government intervention.
In short, the question comes down to whether one believes Obama’s approach is a pre-ordained solution looking for problems to solve or a pragmatic response to problems demanding the proposed solutions.
Let me explain why I support the latter.
There should be little debate over the breadth and range of problems that President Obama inherited upon taking office. Any short list would have to include:
q Imminent meltdown of the global financial system
q Imminent bankruptcy of wide swaths of the US auto industry
q A deep recession, double digit unemployment and a real threat of depression-level economic collapse
q A highly inefficient, inequitable and unsustainable health care system
q A public education system increasingly falling behind global standards
q Crumbling infrastructure across most modes of transportation and public services
q Deep divides over US immigration policy that by any accounting remains effete and ineffective
q An ongoing national addiction to petroleum sourced from geopolitically hostile regions
q Global disarray in tackling climate change and GHG emissions
q Threats of global terrorism with implications for homeland security, regional stability and nuclear proliferation
I may have missed a few hotspots, but this list is daunting enough to raise the question to those who generally oppose an activist federal government response: how do you suppose these problems are going to be addressed?
My kids have grown up under a generation of US Presidents, from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush whose governing philosophy was succinctly captured by Bill Clinton’s proclamation that “the era of big government is over.” ** I would argue that the cumulative impact of 28 years of largely laissez faire domestic policies has contributed to the myriad of economic and societal problems now confronting the US. We have proverbially “kicked the can down the road” far too long.
As such, conservatives, Tea Party-ists and Burkean proponents of minimalist government are profoundly incorrect in their assessment of the underlying motivations of the Obama administration. President Obama has not over-reached as a reflection of his predisposition to big government paternalism. Rather, he has inherited an economy and social fabric teetering on systemic failure on multiple fronts, requiring an urgent and sweeping reversal of decades of laissez faire federalism.
I share the frustrations of many over the tortuous process of Congressional lawmaking, which is fraught with enervating compromises, excessive lobbyist influence, political payoffs and a general lack of transparency. There is most certainly considerable room for improvement.
But if the history of the last quarter century should have taught us anything, it is that we have had too little, not too much government in dealing with the problems noted above. The president is right to respond with overdue federal initiatives.
